www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How Many Ecumenical Councils?

Dear Gordo,

Well, I can take a hint -- although I admit I've been a little slow to do so in this instance.

I'll leave you alone. (I don't know whether or not people are going to continue posting on this thread, but even if so I won't be one of them.)

God bless,
Peter.

There have been 21 Oecumenical Councils of the Holy Catholic Church.

There has been 7 Oecumenical Councils of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Alexandr

Arriving at the figure of seven councils requires a bit of mental juggling - like counting the Council in Trullo as the Quinisext Council, and counting the Council of 879 in Constantinople as the Double Council. Numerology often causes headaches.

Christ is Risen!

Fr. Serge

7 Councils of the Church

So what then renders a council ecumenical?

As we read in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's text, The Orthodox Church, there is not a general consensus on this matter within Orthodoxy.

Gordo

PS: See, Peter? No hints...just general busyness!

The Church's acceptance of a Council as Ecumenical is what ultimately renders it "Ecumenical."

Alex

But what constitute's the Church's acceptance?

Gordo

Dear Gordo,

With all due respect, I think I see where you are going with this.

Since you so obviously disagree with our statements, please let us know where you think the number 7 is coming from.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the Orthodox Posters of the Byzantine Forum came up with this number because it sounded good, are you?

One thing I can tell you is that a council at which not one ORTHODOX Bishop is present is certainly not ecumenical.

Need I remind you that Rome was a part of every council we, Orthodox Christians consider ecumenical?

The above is certainly not true for Rome.

How many Orthodox Bishops were at Vatican II?

......

Yep, thats what I thought.

Subdeacon Borislav:
The flip side to what you're saying is that the Orthodox Church insists that, if it were deemed appropriate, it could call an Ecumenical Council now and not have the bishops of the Catholic Church present.

Dear Gordo,

In advance, I say it is not my intention to offend you by responding to your post!!

O.K.?

So if you feel offended, shout an obscenity at me right away so I know . . .

Fr. Francis Dvornik's work on the Photian schism raised this matter and he suggested that a characteristic hallmark of an Ecumenical Council is that it deals with a matter of faith that has been called into question and/or has threatened Church unity and the like.

In addition to a Council involving reps from the entire Church with approval of the "main Churches" and this has always been taken to mean the main patriarchates in communion with each other as a witness to the Apostolic Succession and Authority, the Ecumenical Council must deal with a direct heresy.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils certainly pass all those tests. Fr. Dvornik referred to the "union Councils" or councils were breaches of unity were restored in the life of the Church simply as that.

Certainly, the 14 Latin Councils would be seen by the Orthodox Church as being local in character. In fact, there are quotes from Orthodox hierarchs throughout the post-schism history who affirm the right of the Latin Church to her local Councils - but that they were only concerned with issues and problems that affected her internally (including the challenge of Protestantism).

This is also an issue between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

The Oriental Orthodox don't like the Fourth Ecumenical Council for obvious reasons . . . But they also say the Seventh Council dealt with an issue, that of iconography, that affected the Byzantine Church alone. Iconoclasm was never an issue for the Oriental Orthodox and so they don't see why they have to accept the Seventh Council . . .

Alex

Dear Athanasius,

In fact, some Orthodox theologians have said that an Ecumenical Council without Rome present would be unthinkable. It is Rome that has gone ahead with 14 Councils of her own without giving a thought to the "schismatic Orthodox" - except of course with respect to the union councils of Lyons and Florence held to try and end the breach.

However, the issue of Ecumenical Councils occurred in an era of unity between East and West before the schism was solidified.

What we're left with today is simply this "I won't recognize your Councils because I wasn't present at them, period."

However, Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) did once write that even the later RC dogmas of the Immaculate Conception etc. COULD foreseeably be agreed to by the Orthodox IF an ecumenical council were held with Rome and Orthodoxy in attendance together and these doctrines were presented to the council for discussion and a vote - if the doctrines passed the vote, the doctrines could be ratified as binding on East and West etc. !

alex

Let us base our discussion on facts alone.

So far, how many Councils has the Orthodox Church had without the Patriarch of Rome in attendance that we have gone on to call Ecumenical?

On the other hand, how many "Ecumenical" Councils has Rome claimed without Orthodox in attendance?

I find it mind blowing that in the face of this there are some Roman Catholics who have the nerve to call us schismatics.

Dear Father Subdeacon Borislav,

That is a very good point - commentators have understood it to be as you say.

Rome goes on to make unilateral definitions of faith, ecclesiology and then demands adherence to them by the East that never knew them.

In that case, it is Rome who is acting schismatical, not the East.

(Do you have a good place for me to hide out while all the rocks are being thrown my way? ;))

Alex

Alex:
Perhaps I should have said that there are Orthodox theologians who insist that the Orthodox Church could hold an Ecumenical Council made up only of the bishops of the Orthodox Church.

Subdeacon Borislav:
BTW, I'm not Roman Catholic--I'm Eastern Catholic, I've never called the Orthodox schismatics (you're not suggesting that I have, are you?), and it is only with great reluctance (if at all) that I would consider as "ecumencial" any council other than those seven accepted by the Orthodox Church.